Using I-Think Maps to Teach Moral Education
Abstract
The Malaysia Moral Education (ME) curriculum and assessment aspects have undergone various
transformations in aspects such as content and pedagogy. Various methods have been introduced
from 1983; the year ME was officially introduced into the Malaysian education system in
primary schools and today ME is formally thought from preschool to tertiary level. In 2011, Ithink maps were introduced in selected schools in Malaysia for a pilot run and were found
effective. Beginning 2014, all schools would be introduced with this thinking tool which enables
students to think structurally and improve their higher order thinking skills (HOTS). This paper
looks into the probability, feasibility and practicality of using I-Think maps in the teaching of
ME in schools.
Keywords: I-think maps, Moral Education, feasibility, practicality, higher order thinking skills
Summary
Moral Education (ME) in Malaysia is a core subject in primary and secondary schools. It is
meant for the non-Muslim students as the Muslim students are already studying Islamic Studies
(Cabinet Report, 1979). The general objective of ME is to develop students into individuals who
recognise, accept and internalise his or her role as a responsible decision-maker pertaining to
moral values in a democratic society such that his or her actions are governed by moral
principles in all situations. ME was first introduced in 1983 in Year One and proceeded to other
standards on a year to year basis. In 1989, ME was extended to all secondary schools also on a
year to year basis.
Since 1983, ME has undergone various transformation. The syllabus itself has been revised for
the third time in three decades. The first syllabus was based on core values to be observed and
upheld by the individual and society. The second syllabus was based on several principles to
deliver holistic individuals physically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and socially. The
current syllabus is based on themes and inclusive of 14 core values. The philosophy behind ME
in Malaysia is to educate individuals into holistic, rationale and social and morally responsible
individuals i.e. teaching and assessing of moral thinking, moral feeling and moral action
(Lickona, 1991). Since the beginning, ME has faced many obstacles and challenges such as
insufficient teachers trained to teach ME, ME too focused on centralised examination and
discrimination against ME compared to other language and science based subjects. The lack of
knowledge, training and commitment in parties involved in ME has made it a memorising,
boring and burdening subject (Vishalache, 2011).
One of the major challenges in ME is to educate students from various cultural backgrounds who
have already learned values and norms from a young age. They have been exposed to societal
norms and this comes in reach in the way students communicate and learn within and outside the
school setting. Before I-Think, other thinking tools such as Theory of Constraint, Tony Buzzan’s
mind map and several other tools have been utilised. The latest one now is the application of IThink maps across all subjects. The rationale is to get students to think out of the box, enable
them to be open minded to accept new ideas, be reasonable risk takers, be resilient if they get
some things wrong, not to be too structure or constrained with current experience and practice
and be able to resolve moral issues using creative ways and methods.
This paper will look into the eight thinking maps which combine the cognitive thought processes
of learning with the visual representation of information found in graphic organisers that are
within the I-Think school and share experiences of how to use a range of new teaching tools and
strategies that will help both teacher and students to utilise such tools based on their own subject
matter. It will also look into understanding what a “Thinking School” is and the benefits it can
provide for both students and teachers. Most important is the creativity and critical alertness of
educators to be able to able suitable thinking tools to teach according to suitable titles or issues.
It should not be the case of one fits all but more of applying knowledge and experience of when
to use what thinking tool. The thinking maps will also complement with planning time for
teachers’ questioning skills which is ideally appropriate if students are brought from lower order
thinking skills (LOTS) to higher order thinking skills (HOTS).
References
Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and
responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.
Vishalache, B. (2011). Real-life dilemmas in moral education. Kuala Lumpur: University
Malaya Press.